Case Law Details
In re Hindustan Coca-cola Beverages Pvt.Ltd. (GST AAR Karnataka)
Whether “FANTA FRUITY ORANGE” product proposed to be manufactured is classified under Chapter Heading 2202 99 20 at Sl. No. 48 under Schedule II as “Fruit pulp or fruit juice based drinks”, or under Chapter 2202 99 90 at Sl.No. 24A under Schedule III as “Other Non-alcoholic beverages” or under 2202 10 at Sl.No.12 under Schedule IV as “all goods [including aerated waters], containing added sugar or other sweetening matter or flavoured” under Notification No.1/2017- Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 (as amended)”.
In the instant case the applicant had already filed an application, on 27.11.2017, for advance ruling before the Gujarat Authority for Advance Ruling in respect of the same question i.e. classification of the product ‘Fanta Fruity Orange’ that has also been raised in the instant application. Hence it is clearly evident that the question raised by the applicant in the instant application, under the provisions of CGST Act 2017, has already been decided by the Gujarat Authority for Advance Ruling. Therefore the instant application is liable for rejection.
FULL TEXT OF ORDER OF AUTHORITY OF ADVANCE RULING, KARNATAKA
1. M/s Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd., (called as the ‘applicant’ hereinafter), having GSTIN number 29AAACH3005M1ZN, have filed an application for Advance Ruling under Section 97 of the CGST Act, 2017 & KGST Act 2017 read with Rule 104 of CGST Rules 2017.& KGST Rules 2017, in FORM GST ARA-01, discharging the fee of Rs.5,000/- each under the CGST Act and the KGST Act.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
OFFHAND
Presumably, the Guj. AAR’s decision had been adverse to the applicant. However, unclear whether that has been accepted and not appealed against, thus become final ?
In case not been accepted but pending , then evidently has triggered the consequence of otherwise avoidable multiplicity of proceedings.
NOTE: Reference to ‘ same issue’ in the Headline is wanting in clarity. In that, in the present context that has / refers to the identical point of dispute; namely, the classification of the given project for the questioned levy. Thus the AAR’s ruling is not to be taken as having laid down a general proposition!
courtesy
Any thoughts ?